In the 90s, the Russian navy did not lose a single valuable ship.
All combat units that could solve tasks at the level of the best world analogues were equipped and armed with the most modern weapons - they remained in the ranks and are in great health to this day.
Horror stories about how "accursed enemies under cover of night took ships to Alang for cutting" or "sold cruisers to the Chinese for a penny", or "cut the latest boats to please American" friends "do not correspond to reality.
If you disagree with this statement, check out the Navy payroll. Basic facts, characteristics, dates of commissioning and withdrawal from the fleet.
Now name at least one modern at that time, really combat-ready ship, which would have just been sent for cutting.
The main reason for the write-off is absolute obsolescence. Typically associated with physical wear and tear caused by decades of service.
What tasks could the destroyers of projects 56 and 57, laid down in the mid-1950s, solve?
Why did the fleet include dozens of patrol boats of project 159 and small anti-submarine ships of project 204? By the time they were written off, most of them hadn’t been out at sea for ten years, simply “hovering” on the balance sheet of the Navy.
Why did over two hundred diesel submarines of post-war projects rusted at the berths?
For what? Right, what a question! To inflate the number of personnel and, consequently, increase the number of admiral posts.
For the same reason, the service of conditionally combat-ready nuclear submarines of 1-2 generations was extended.
With all due respect to the creators of these vintage masterpieces, as of the beginning of the 90s, they could no longer solve any real problems. Any technique has its limits.
The decommissioning of obsolete ships was a natural process, regardless of the political situation in the country.
All of the above is true for missile cruisers and BODs of the 60-70s.
Large anti-submarine ships of project 61, RRC projects 58 "Grozny" and 1134 "Berkut" were in service for over 30 years. Some insisted on modernizing them and extending their service life. Are you seriously?
Helicopter carriers "Leningrad" and "Moscow" from the 1960s. By the end of the century, they were completely obsolete from keel to klotik, and the capabilities of their air wings were inferior to any Mistral.
Actually, I'm not going to look for all the flaws in the ships of the Cold War era. Suffice it to say that even relatively modern ships that were scrapped had major problems.
Therefore, it was decided to write them off.
Those combat units with which there were no questions, continued to serve and will outlive you and me.
Among those less fortunate:
Destroyers of the project 956. The ships were destroyed by an unreliable boiler and turbine installation.
The world's largest submarine "Shark". The series was created for solid-propellant missiles weighing 90 tons (like three modern Bulava). The industry was then unable to ensure the fulfillment of the requirements of the TK with smaller missiles.
With the advent of more compact weapons, the need for "Sharks" simply disappeared. The dubious achievements of the giants were offset by very real shortcomings. Two reactors, two propellers, maximum dimensions - max. disturbances in the Earth's magnetic field, the maximum wetted surface area. More noise - less secrecy. In combat conditions, it is deadly.
The reconnaissance ship SSV-33 "Ural", which from the moment of entry into service had a constant roll of 2 degrees. on the port side.
Its creation is proof of the great capabilities of science and industry of that time. But still, even at the stage of issuing the TK, someone had to think: could such a complex ship be operated in real conditions? Will the proper preparation of the l / s and equipment with the necessary specialists be provided? Will the compatibility and operability of countless radio-electronic means and systems be ensured in practice?
Probably not. Hence the result. In 1989, the Ural reconnaissance officer made the transition to his duty station at the Pacific Fleet, after which he was permanently out of order. All the "nineties" and "zero" the ship stood in the roadstead, now a decision has been made to dispose of the "Ural".
Aircraft-carrying cruisers "Kiev", "Minsk", "Novorossiysk", "Baku"
A hybrid of a missile cruiser and an aircraft carrier turned out to be ineffective as a cruiser, and completely incapable of combat as an aircraft carrier.
One fact is enough: their main weapon, the Yak-38 vertical takeoff aircraft, did not have a radar … The appearance of the supersonic Yak-141 could not correct the situation: compare its characteristics with the ship's Su-33, with which they were born at the same time.
In terms of the composition of the armament, the TAVKR corresponded to a large anti-submarine ship, despite the sixfold difference in their displacement! With the advent of the Slava RRC, the comparison generally lost all meaning due to the incomparable capabilities of TAVKRs and "normal" cruisers armed with 16 Basalts and the S-300 long-range anti-aircraft system.
Plus age. The head "Kiev" served for almost 20 years, most of which he spent on the roadstead, developing the resource of his power plant. The creation of full-fledged bases for TAVKRs was not considered necessary.
Subsequently, one of the aircraft-carrying cruisers (“Baku, aka“Admiral Gorshkov”) was rebuilt into a classic aircraft carrier and sold to India at a price of $ 2.3 billion.
Now experts will definitely remember the Ulyanovsk nuclear aircraft carrier, forgetting that at the time of the decision to dismantle it, the Ulyanovsk readiness level was only 18%.
The only one who you can sympathize with in this story is the Varyag aircraft carrier, which remained in Nikolaev and was sold to China when 67% were ready. After 15 years, the former "Varyag" was finally completed and entered into the PLA Navy under the name "Liaoning".
However, even in the case of "Varyag" we are not talking about an operating, but about an unfinished ship. And, as the recent epic with the Kuznetsov's campaign to the Syrian shores shows, the need for ships of this class for the Navy raises more and more doubts. And where to get planes to equip two ships, if only 8 fighters were based on the Kuznetsov deck during the recent cruise!..
As mentioned above, all decommissioned ships were or unreliable, or excessively complex, or incapable of combat, or all at once.
What about those with whom there were no problems, who corresponded to modern standards and whose presence was justified from the point of view of their combat qualities? ALL OF THEY REMAINED.
Here it is, the "backbone" of the modern Russian Navy
8 out of 12 ships of the 1155 family were preserved and survived to this day. One of the four decommissioned BODs became a victim of an accident (turbine explosion on the Admiral Zakharov BDK, 30-hour fire). The remaining three, for technical reasons, were put into reserve and disassembled already in the "zero" years.
Epilogue
Bulk write-off modern ships in the 90s. is a figment of the public's imagination.
Only the most obsolete and problematic units were written off, the real combat effectiveness of which raised doubts. And the country's economy was no longer pulling dubious experiments. The deterioration of the economic situation is not good, but keeping hundreds of units of rusty rubbish on the balance sheet is also not the best idea.
Similar processes took place in the United States, where during that period 300 warships were decommissioned, including all 9 nuclear cruisers, 7 aircraft carriers and 60 nuclear submarines. At the same time, frankly speaking, many of the American ships were "still nothing" against the background of what our military had to write off.
Contrary to the prevailing stereotypes, the fleet in the 90s not only wrote off ships, but even managed to replenish with new ones. The tragically destroyed Kursk was the newest nuclear-powered ship built in 1995. In total, at that time, as many as five nuclear submarines were built. And all modern projects also originate from the 90s. The head "Ash" was founded in 1993, and the first of the "Borey" - in 1996.
The habit of blaming all modern problems on the "dashing nineties" looks unreasonable. Firstly, ships at that time were built at the very least. And if "on the garlic", then they were built much faster than today. Secondly, that era has already become history.
The culprits of the scandalous "long-term construction" and the postponement of the delivery dates of the ships should be sought among contemporaries, and not among historical characters.
The lack of capacity and qualified personnel is also a myth. If the shipbuilding industry really had such intractable problems, how would ships for export be built?
Who replaced the 234 hull sections and the power plant of the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier?
Who built four destroyers for China and six more Indian Talwar?
Who exported 15 submarines for the Indian, Algerian and Vietnamese navies?
Takes pride in the domestic industry. Damn it, we can! But an unclear situation arises with the navy.
Returning to the title topic of the article … We could not find a single clear example when modern combat-ready ships would have been taken away for tearing for no reason at all. There were no such cases in the 90s.
